Improve frontend test coverage above 95%#3952
Conversation
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
WalkthroughAdds extensive unit tests across many frontend components and pages and makes focused implementation changes to ItemCardList, MetricsCard, EntityActions, MultiSearch, ProgramForm, TruncatedText, and two pages; no public API signatures were expanded. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@frontend/__tests__/unit/components/CardDetailsPage.test.tsx`:
- Around line 2373-2397: The test shows a malformed fallback URL with a double
slash because CardDetailsPage calls getMenteeUrl with undefined/empty
programKey/entityKey; update the production code (preferably in getMenteeUrl or
wherever CardDetailsPage builds the link) to omit empty segments when keys are
falsy (e.g., only append `/programs/${programKey}` if programKey is truthy) so
URLs normalize (no `//`), and then update this test (CardDetailsPage.test.tsx)
to expect the normalized URL (e.g., '/programs/mentees/test_mentee' or
'/mentees/test_mentee' depending on chosen convention); adjust DetailsCardProps
handling if needed to ensure programKey/entityKey default to undefined/null and
not produce empty string segments.
In `@frontend/__tests__/unit/components/EntityActions.test.tsx`:
- Around line 730-742: The new "Toggle Behavior" test suite (describe('Toggle
Behavior', ...)) is declared outside the main describe('EntityActions', ...) so
it misses the existing useRouter mock setup and beforeEach that sets useRouter
to return { push: mockPush }; move the entire describe('Toggle Behavior', ...)
block so it sits inside the main describe('EntityActions', ...) block (so it
inherits the beforeEach/useRouter mock and mockPush), ensuring the EntityActions
component has the router mock during render and preventing potential TypeError
if router is accessed.
In `@frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProgramForm.test.tsx`:
- Around line 1197-1222: The test 'handles string menteesLimit in validation'
uses userEvent.click directly, skipping the required setup; replace the direct
call with the library's async user setup: create const user = userEvent.setup()
(like other tests) and call await user.click(submitButton) to trigger the
submit; update the invocation around submitButton in the ProgramForm.test.tsx
test to use the user variable and await the click so it matches other tests and
works with `@testing-library/user-event` v14+.
In `@frontend/__tests__/unit/components/TruncatedText.test.tsx`:
- Around line 248-268: The test replaces React.useRef with a mock but doesn’t
restore it correctly; capture the spy returned by jest.spyOn(React, 'useRef')
into a variable (e.g., useRefSpy) before mocking, and ensure you call
useRefSpy.mockRestore() in a finally block (or after the assertion) so
React.useRef is properly restored even if the test fails; update the test that
creates nullRef and mocks React.useRef to restore the original via the stored
spy instead of calling jest.spyOn(...) again.
In `@frontend/__tests__/unit/contexts/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx`:
- Around line 41-52: Rename the test title to accurately reflect that Home ('/')
is not registered: update the it(...) description in BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx
(the test that uses registerBreadcrumb and getBreadcrumbItems and pushes into
cleanupFns) from "sorts by length when home is involved" to something like
"sorts by path length when home is not present" so the name matches the actual
behavior being asserted (the fallback a.path.length - b.path.length branch).
- Around line 10-13: The forEach callback in the afterEach block implicitly
returns fn() which violates the Biome rule; change the callback to not return a
value by using a block-bodied arrow or a for...of loop to call each cleanup
function without returning. Update the afterEach that references cleanupFns and
its callback (currently written as (fn) => fn()) to use either (fn) => { fn(); }
or iterate with for (const fn of cleanupFns) { fn(); } and then reset cleanupFns
= [].
In `@frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/MyMentorship.test.tsx`:
- Around line 380-419: The test "updates debounced search query" uses
jest.useFakeTimers() but calls jest.useRealTimers() unguarded, risking fake
timers leaking if an assertion fails; modify the test (the it block named
"updates debounced search query") to wrap the test body that uses
jest.useFakeTimers()/jest.advanceTimersByTime(500) in a try/finally and move
jest.useRealTimers() into the finally block so real timers are always restored
regardless of failures.
In `@frontend/src/components/ProgramForm.tsx`:
- Around line 157-160: There is a duplicated comment above the name-uniqueness
check in ProgramForm.tsx; remove one of the identical lines so only a single
comment remains above the call to checkNameUniquenessSync and the subsequent
setNameUniquenessError call (look for the comment text "// Check name uniqueness
and capture result before validation" near the const uniquenessError = await
checkNameUniquenessSync(formData.name) and remove the duplicate).
🧹 Nitpick comments (19)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Users.test.tsx (1)
150-170: Consider adding a negative assertion for the missing company.The test verifies the user name renders, but doesn't assert that no company text is shown. Adding a check like
expect(screen.queryByText('Some Company')).not.toBeInTheDocument()(or whatever the component renders for company) would make this test more meaningful by confirming thenullcompany path is actually exercised, not just that the name renders.That said, the test is consistent with the existing patterns in this file and is a reasonable addition.
💡 Optional: strengthen the assertion
await waitFor(() => { expect(screen.getByText('User Without Company')).toBeInTheDocument() }) + + // Verify no company is rendered for this user + expect(screen.queryByText('company')).not.toBeInTheDocument() })Adjust the query to match whatever text or element the component renders for the company field.
frontend/__tests__/unit/components/RepositoryCard.test.tsx (1)
81-86: Consider a less brittle assertion than querying by CSS class.
container.querySelector('.grid')couples the test to the component's internal CSS class. If the class name changes, this test breaks without any behavioral change. A more resilient alternative:- expect(container.querySelector('.grid')).toBeNull() + expect(container.firstChild).toBeNull()Or if the component renders a wrapper even when empty,
toBeEmptyDOMElement()on the container could work. Either way, this is a minor point — the test logic itself is sound.frontend/__tests__/unit/components/forms/shared/FormTextarea.test.tsx (1)
4-11: Consider resetting mocks between tests for safety.
defaultProps.onChangeis a sharedjest.fn()that persists across tests. Currently no test relies on its call count, but adding a cleanup guard prevents subtle issues as the suite grows.♻️ Suggested addition
describe('FormTextarea', () => { const defaultProps = { id: 'test-textarea', label: 'Test Label', placeholder: 'Enter text', value: '', onChange: jest.fn(), } + + afterEach(() => { + jest.clearAllMocks() + })frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/IssuesPage.test.tsx (1)
341-373: Largely overlaps with the test at Line 265; consider consolidating.This test covers the combination of empty
availableLabels+ a mix of non-null and nulllabelsacross issues, but the empty-availableLabels+ extraction path is already exercised by the test at Line 265. The only incremental value here is verifying that a sibling issue withlabels: nulldoesn't break extraction.Consider folding the
null-labels issue into the existing test at Line 265 instead of adding a near-duplicate test block. This keeps the suite leaner and easier to maintain.Also, this is the only
mockUseQuerycall in the file that omitserror: undefined— minor inconsistency with the rest of the test suite.Suggested consolidation into the existing test (Line 265)
it('extracts labels from issues when availableLabels is empty', async () => { const dataWithoutAvailableLabels = { getModule: { ...mockModuleData.getModule, availableLabels: [], issues: [ { ...mockModuleData.getModule.issues[0], labels: ['extracted-label-1', 'extracted-label-2'], }, + { + ...mockModuleData.getModule.issues[0], + id: '2', + labels: null, + }, ], }, }frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ProjectHealthDashboardMetricsDetails.test.tsx (1)
263-287: Assertion is weak — consider verifying the date is actually processed.The only assertion checks that mocked ApexCharts elements exist, which would also pass with
createdAt: null(as the test on line 158 already demonstrates). This means the test doesn't actually verify the "valid createdAt" code path behaves differently from the null case.If the component formats the date and displays it (e.g., as axis labels or a heading), assert on that rendered output. If the date only flows into the chart config (invisible due to the mock), consider at minimum asserting that
useQuerywas called and the component didn't error — or inspect the props passed to the mocked ApexCharts component.Example: capture props passed to mocked ApexCharts
-jest.mock('react-apexcharts', () => { - return { - __esModule: true, - default: () => { - return <div data-testid="mock-apexcharts">Mock ApexChart</div> - }, - } -}) +const mockApexCharts = jest.fn(() => <div data-testid="mock-apexcharts">Mock ApexChart</div>) +jest.mock('react-apexcharts', () => ({ + __esModule: true, + default: mockApexCharts, +}))Then in the test you could assert the chart received series data derived from the valid date:
await waitFor(() => { expect(mockApexCharts).toHaveBeenCalled() // Optionally inspect: mockApexCharts.mock.calls[0][0].options / series })frontend/__tests__/unit/components/Release.test.tsx (2)
396-411: Duplicate test — this is identical to the test at Line 333.Both
'does not navigate when clicking repository button with missing org'(Line 333) and this test use the same setup (organizationName: ''), the same action (fireEvent.click), and the same assertion (mockRouterPushnot called). Remove one of them.Additionally, the block of speculative comments on lines 402–408 is noisy and should be removed — tests should document intent, not uncertainty about the testing framework.
411-412: Nit: Missing blank lines between test cases.The rest of the file consistently separates
itblocks with a blank line, but lines 411–412 and 440–441 are missing that separator.Also applies to: 440-441
frontend/src/components/ItemCardList.tsx (1)
96-106: Variabletitleon Line 100 shadows the component'stitleprop (Line 62).Inside
getItemKey, the localconst titleshadows the outer destructuredtitleprop. It's not a bug here sincegetItemKeydoesn't reference the prop, but it can trip up future maintainers. Consider renaming toitemTitle.♻️ Suggested rename
- const title = 'title' in i ? i.title : '' + const itemTitle = 'title' in i ? i.title : '' const name = 'name' in i ? i.name : '' const url = 'url' in i ? i.url : '' - const keyParts = [repoName, title || name, url].filter(Boolean) + const keyParts = [repoName, itemTitle || name, url].filter(Boolean)frontend/__tests__/unit/contexts/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx (1)
54-55: Remove stale coverage-tracking comments.These comments reference specific source line numbers and don't provide lasting value — they'll go stale as the source file evolves.
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ModuleIssueDetailsPage.test.tsx (2)
617-621: Remove or rewrite the leftover exploratory comments.Lines 619-620 read like draft notes (
"LabelList handles null?","If LabelList handles it, fine."). Either replace them with a concrete assertion (e.g., verify no label elements are rendered) or remove them so the test intent stays clear.Proposed cleanup
// Should render main sections without crashing expect(screen.getByText('Test Issue Title')).toBeInTheDocument() - // Labels section is rendered but empty (LabelList handles null?) - // If LabelList handles it, fine. + // Labels, assignees, and interested users sections should degrade gracefully + expect(screen.queryByText('bug')).not.toBeInTheDocument()
623-663: Assign/unassign assertions are redundant — buttons are already disabled.The test at line 417 already verifies that assign/unassign buttons are
disabledwhenassigning/unassigningaretrue. A disabled button won't fire itsonClickin React, soassignIssue/unassignIssuenot being called here (lines 652, 657) is due to the disabled attribute — not the in-handler logic guard the comment on line 649 describes.The deadline-change guard (lines 659-662) is the genuinely valuable part of this test since the input element isn't disabled.
Consider either:
- Removing the assign/unassign portion (it duplicates existing coverage), or
- Testing the logic guard directly by keeping
assigning: truebut ensuring the button is not disabled (e.g., by verifying the component's guard fires even if the disabled prop were absent).frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx (2)
407-432: Nice addition — covers the desktop logo closing the mobile menu.This test correctly validates the behavior described in the component where the desktop logo's
onClickcallssetMobileMenuOpen(false). Minor nit: consider usingtoBeInTheDocument()instead oftoBeDefined()on lines 427 and 400 for more descriptive failure messages —.find()returnsundefinedon miss, andtoBeDefined()just says "expected not to be undefined" vs a proper DOM assertion message.Optional: slightly more descriptive assertions
- expect(desktopLogoLink).toBeDefined() + expect(desktopLogoLink).toBeInTheDocument()Same for line 400:
- expect(mobileLogoLink).toBeDefined() + expect(mobileLogoLink).toBeInTheDocument()
524-531:expect(true).toBe(true)is a no-op assertion.This test only verifies that dispatching a resize event doesn't throw, but the assertion on line 530 provides zero signal. The test at lines 773–815 already properly validates resize behavior by extracting the handler and checking menu state. Consider either adding a real assertion here (e.g., verifying the menu is still present) or removing this test to avoid false confidence.
Suggested improvement
- // Test passes if no errors are thrown - expect(true).toBe(true) + // Verify component is still rendered correctly after resize + expect(screen.getByRole('banner')).toBeInTheDocument()frontend/__tests__/unit/components/skeletons/Card.test.tsx (1)
33-47: Add dedicated test-id to icon skeletons for more resilient test selectors.Both tests identify "icon skeletons" by matching the substring
'h-8 w-16'inclassName. While this pattern is currently unique to icon skeletons in the component, relying on class names makes tests fragile to Tailwind refactoring. Adddata-testid="icon-skeleton"to the icon skeleton elements (line 40 of Card.tsx) and use that selector in tests instead of className filtering.frontend/src/components/ProgramForm.tsx (1)
245-255: Type mismatch:menteesLimitis typed asnumberbut handled as potentiallyundefined.Line 250 uses optional chaining (
?.) and line 152 checks!== undefined && !== null, yet the interface on line 25 declaresmenteesLimit: number(required, non-nullable). Ifundefinedis a valid runtime value, update the type tomenteesLimit?: numberfor consistency. Otherwise the defensive checks are misleading.frontend/src/components/TruncatedText.tsx (1)
1-1: Production code restyled solely to enable test mocking.Switching from named hook imports to
React.useRef/React.useCallback/React.useEffecthas no runtime benefit — it was done only so the test canjest.spyOn(React, 'useRef'). This couples production code style to a testing implementation detail.A less invasive alternative is to use dependency injection (passing the ref as a prop or using a wrapper) or to test the observable behavior (what renders) rather than internal wiring. That said, this is a minor concern and the current approach does work.
Also applies to: 12-12, 14-14, 21-21
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/MyMentorship.test.tsx (1)
356-378: Consider adding a minimal assertion to verify no errors after unmount.The test currently only asserts the component renders before unmount. While this is fine for coverage, you could check that no console errors or warnings were emitted to add a small amount of value beyond "it doesn't crash."
frontend/src/app/projects/dashboard/metrics/page.tsx (1)
237-238: Non-null assertion (!) is safe now but couples to an implicit invariant.
parseOrderParamalways returns a validurlKeythat exists in bothORDERING_MAPandSORT_FIELDS, sofind(...)will never returnundefinedtoday. However, the!on line 238 will silently mask a runtime crash ifSORT_FIELDSandORDERING_MAPkeys ever diverge.Consider a fallback instead of the assertion:
Suggested safer alternative
- selectedLabels={[SORT_FIELDS.find((f) => f.key === urlKey)!.label]} + selectedLabels={[SORT_FIELDS.find((f) => f.key === urlKey)?.label ?? 'Score (High → Low)']}frontend/__tests__/unit/components/NavDropDown.test.tsx (1)
643-681: Good coverage of no-op keyboard paths.These tests correctly exercise the uncovered branches in the
onKeyDownhandlers for both the button and submenu items.Minor nit: test names referencing source line numbers (e.g.,
"(line 50)","(line 84)") will go stale when the source file changes. Consider describing the behavior instead, e.g.,"ignores Escape when dropdown is already closed".
![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
7 issues found across 41 files
Confidence score: 4/5
- Test reliability risk: several unit tests can leak or mis-handle mocks/timers (e.g.,
jest.useRealTimers()infrontend/__tests__/unit/pages/MyMentorship.test.tsx, and missingbeforeEachsetup infrontend/__tests__/unit/components/EntityActions.test.tsx), which could cause flaky CI but not product behavior. - A few assertions are ineffective or ambiguous (tautological expect in
frontend/__tests__/unit/components/MultiSearch.test.tsx, ambiguous/Assign/imatch infrontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ModuleIssueDetailsPage.test.tsx), so coverage may be weaker than intended. - Pay close attention to
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/MyMentorship.test.tsx,frontend/__tests__/unit/components/EntityActions.test.tsx,frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ModuleIssueDetailsPage.test.tsx,frontend/__tests__/unit/components/MultiSearch.test.tsx,frontend/__tests__/unit/components/TruncatedText.test.tsx,frontend/__tests__/unit/components/Release.test.tsx,frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProgramForm.test.tsx- test cleanup/consistency issues could cause flakiness or missed assertions.
Prompt for AI agents (all issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/Release.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/Release.test.tsx:396">
P2: This test is a duplicate of the existing `'does not navigate when clicking repository button with missing org'` test — both set `organizationName: ''`, click the button, and assert `mockRouterPush` was not called. The long stream-of-consciousness comments ("We can't easily force the click...", "BUT checking for coverage...", "Let's try firing it again") read like unedited AI reasoning rather than useful test documentation. Remove this duplicate test or, if it's meant to cover a genuinely different code path, restructure it to actually exercise that path differently.
(Based on your team's feedback about ensuring AI-generated changes are reviewed and tested.) [FEEDBACK_USED]</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/MyMentorship.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/MyMentorship.test.tsx:418">
P2: `jest.useRealTimers()` is not in a `try/finally` block or `afterEach`. If any assertion in this test fails before that line, fake timers leak into all subsequent tests, causing hard-to-debug cascading failures. Wrap the test body in `try/finally` or add an `afterEach(() => jest.useRealTimers())` to the describe block.</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/EntityActions.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/EntityActions.test.tsx:730">
P2: `describe('Toggle Behavior')` is placed outside the main `describe('EntityActions')` block, so it misses the `beforeEach` that calls `jest.clearAllMocks()` and sets up the `useRouter` mock. This can cause mock leakage and flaky tests. Move this describe block inside `describe('EntityActions')` to share the same setup/teardown lifecycle.</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProgramForm.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProgramForm.test.tsx:1215">
P2: Inconsistent `userEvent` usage: all other tests in this file (37 instances) use `const user = userEvent.setup()` then `user.click()`, but this test calls `userEvent.click()` directly. Use the instance API for consistency and to avoid subtle state-tracking issues when tests are extended with additional interactions.</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ModuleIssueDetailsPage.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ModuleIssueDetailsPage.test.tsx:647">
P2: The regex `/Assign/i` also matches the "Unassign @user1" button's aria-label, and since the Assignees section is rendered before Interested Users in the DOM, `assignButtons[0]` is the Unassign button — not the Assign button. This means the assertion `expect(assignIssue).not.toHaveBeenCalled()` trivially passes because the Unassign handler never calls `assignIssue`. Use a more precise selector to target the actual Assign button.</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/MultiSearch.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/MultiSearch.test.tsx:988">
P2: `expect(true).toBe(true)` is a tautological assertion that always passes — it doesn't verify anything about the component's behavior. The comment says "events should not be in suggestions" but this is never actually checked. Replace with a meaningful assertion, e.g., verifying that no event-related items appear in the rendered suggestions list.</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/TruncatedText.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/TruncatedText.test.tsx:267">
P2: Improper mock cleanup: the restoration at the end creates/reuses a spy with `mockImplementation` instead of properly restoring the original. Save the spy reference from `jest.spyOn` and call `.mockRestore()` to correctly undo the mock.</violation>
</file>
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix. Tag @cubic-dev-ai to re-run a review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
2 issues found across 10 files (changes from recent commits).
Prompt for AI agents (all issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/CreateModule.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/CreateModule.test.tsx:29">
P3: This mock of `CreateModuleDocument` is added to the wrong module. The component imports `CreateModuleDocument` from `types/__generated__/moduleMutations.generated`, not from `@apollo/client/react`. This mock entry has no effect and is misleading dead code. If you need to mock `CreateModuleDocument`, add a separate `jest.mock('types/__generated__/moduleMutations.generated', ...)` block instead.</violation>
</file>
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/CardDetailsPage.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/CardDetailsPage.test.tsx:78">
P2: Mock for `getMenteeUrl` introduces conditional logic (`programKey ? …`) that doesn't exist in the real implementation. The real `getMenteeUrl` always interpolates `programKey` into the URL template — passing an empty string produces a URL with an empty path segment (e.g., `/programs//mentees/…`), not an omitted segment. This makes the 'renders mentees with execution of fallback keys' test validate fabricated mock behavior rather than the component's real behavior, giving a false positive.
If the intention is to improve the URL for empty keys, that logic should be added to the real `getMenteeUrl` (with a corresponding unit test for it), not smuggled into a mock.</violation>
</file>
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix. Tag @cubic-dev-ai to re-run a review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1 issue found across 2 files (changes from recent commits).
Prompt for AI agents (all issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/CardDetailsPage.test.tsx">
<violation number="1" location="frontend/__tests__/unit/components/CardDetailsPage.test.tsx:2396">
P2: The simplified `getMenteeUrl` mock removes the conditional fallback logic that was the purpose of this test case ("renders mentees with execution of fallback keys"). The assertion now expects a URL with double slashes (`/programs//mentees/test_mentee`), meaning the test no longer validates any meaningful fallback behavior—it just confirms empty-string interpolation. The comment on the line above (`// with empty string keys: /mentees/test_mentee`) is also now stale and contradicts this expectation.
Consider keeping the mock's conditional logic, or if the intent is to match real behavior more closely, update the test name, comment, and consider whether this test case is still needed.</violation>
</file>
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix. Tag @cubic-dev-ai to re-run a review.
|
@coderabbitai please review |
|
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
|
Hi @kasya the pr is ready for review let me know if any further changes are required. |
arkid15r
left a comment
arkid15r
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove excessive comments from tests
|
Hi @arkid15r I have updated it Could you please review. Thanks! |
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3952 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.34% 96.77% +0.42%
==========================================
Files 512 512
Lines 15826 15821 -5
Branches 2132 2167 +35
==========================================
+ Hits 15248 15310 +62
+ Misses 431 422 -9
+ Partials 147 89 -58
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 23 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
arkid15r
left a comment
arkid15r
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding this!
2 participants
Proposed change
This PR improves frontend unit test coverage for files that were previously below the 95% line coverage
Resolves #3937
Checklist
make check-testlocally: all warnings addressed, tests passed